A bitch looked at the tape whilst drinking my morning coffee and…well, I think she may be right.

Catch the knee before you put someone’s eye out!

Shit.

I hope Miss California is right because this bitch thinks her answer was unattractive as a motherfucker, un-American and worthy of costing a contestant a crown.

Oh no, she didn't?!?

Oh yes, I did!

I’m not saying that people don’t have the right to be wrong…to express their wrong as hell fucked up from the floor up values…and even share their opinion that their beliefs should be the law of the land even though the law of the land was intended to protect the minority group from the whims of the majority.

A bitch is a proud ACLU supporter and I’ll fight like hell to protect the right of the citizen to have public displays of ig’nance…mostly because that shit protects this bitch’s ability to indulge in public displays of bitchitude-based brilliance (wink).

But what Miss California doesn’t get and probably won’t ever get is that no amount of MAC eye shadow or lip gloss or ‘no disrespect intended, for sure…I just think y’all aren’t worthy of the thousands of rights associated with legal marriage anymore than I think brunettes should win this title!’ can make her opinion of marriage being an exclusive man-on-woman right attractive.

And, since pageants are subjective as a motherfucker…just look at who made the final cut, for the love of all that’s the return of the 1980’s Seventeen magazine cover model…the judges were in the right to judge that answer to be unpretty.

Ah it's part of that lovely special "free speech" argument I see going round among the prejudiced set.

See, THEIR freedom of speech means that the rest of us are to allow them to say whatever they want - no matter how hateful or prejudiced or offensive - but we're not allowed to criticise (OUR freedom of speech be damned) nor should they ever face consequences from what they say (like us not liking them/voting for them or think they're bigots).

It's a very very very special version of Freedom of Speech and requires a whole ton of entitlement to pull off

I read that the woman had the option of choosing from which judge she wanted to take a question. What I don't understand is why, given her attitudes, she chose the very openly gay Perez. Doesn't seem like a smart move to me.

Still, I don't know that being a judge on a tacky beauty contest is all that much more politically appealing than opposing gay marriage.

You have no understanding of the intentions of the founding fathers, their goal was to ensure that rich white men stayed rich. that was the purpose of their intent. fortunately there was a bill of rights added at the end to protect us little people.

What her PR people probably have told her is that by saying she is opposed to equality and that it cost her the crown, she can turn around and say that they(those who do not agree with her) are being bigotted towards her. She becomes the victim, even though she is the bigot! This is the slippery slope on which we all now live.

Has anyone one out there read, The Man Who Sold The World. It's about Reaganomics and it speaks to this idea that these bigots/big business lovers/haters of the common folk have that they are the true victims, eventhough they are the ones causing all the problems. They simply can not see that they are the problem. This woman is the problem and so are all the other men and women who work daily to oppress others.

I watched the video of this and you nailed it, Bitch. I think her comments lost her the crown, but deservedly so. If she is so unaware of facts that she doesn't know that one CAN'T choose what kind of marriage (it's ILLEGAL in my state, princess) then she doesn't get to win.

Let's face it, it's a pageant. I don't get why we're still have these in this day and age. And to expect the best and brightest to enter is foolish really. What you get is pretty with a lot of media training.

Now if I may descend into the unpretty for a moment. What really cost her the crown was her enormous head and that weird boob job...

Yea, the beauty queen sounded like one of those religious fundie extremists, but the question I gotta ask is: who gives a damn what some dumb fuck barbie doll beauty queen from Calleefornia thinks about gay marriage?

First of all, will we ever get rid of the anachronistic, misogynistic Miss Twat USA/Universe/whatever?As a native Californian, in some fucked up way, she does reflect the ignorance and stupidity of our "hip and progressive" state judging from Prop H8's success. Wake up California!

We do need to care about what this "dumb fuck barbie doll beauty queen from Calleefornia thinks" cuz, given the platform from which she spoke - televised globally, it registered with all those who look to a "figure head" dumbass for validation of their bigotry and hate!

Its fucked up but the reality of the world we are in! Need someone point out that ignorance seldomly looks outside its own box for education!

I thought it was a pretty good statement in that she mentioned that people could choose, but that she had a different view. She didn't say anything that was hateful or bigoted, unless you happen to believe that the current President (who is also opposed to gay marriage) is hateful and bigoted.

For Hilton to call her a c*** and a b**** shows who's really hateful and intolerant.

I won't disparage her statement or beliefs..as sadly hateful as they are.

But I would bet the current Miss America feels the same way, as most of the females that take part in these types of contests are shallow, self-centered women with a conservative bent...I mean really..how many progressives would put themselves through the shit these broads gladly go through? ;p

Shady_Grady, it's good that she mentioned that people could choose? why? so that she can demonstrate her ignorance? Only people who live in Iowa or Massachusetts can choose same-sex or "opposite" marriage.

Dear Rants, Thoughts & Merde, You're partly right... We do need to pay attention to what passes for acceptable opinion in broadcast. Not to censure it, but so we can shine light on the ideas to see if they hold with our current vision (ever-expanding, hopefully) of civil rights, our society, etc. However, I take exception to your "televised globally". This crap certainly was not broadcast here in France, and I doubt in any other culturally developed country. Don't worry about world opinion being shocked or America's image distorted by this particular episode. Where anybody is still paying attention, epectations are pretty low already.

Thanks, Angry Black Bitch! This Angry Black Man needed a quick reminder of how intolerant you pro-gay motherfuckers truly are. I'm in favor of regular, old-fashioned, every-major-religion, man-and-woman marriage, just like the vast majority of motherfuckers on this motherfuckin' planet. I never thought of myself as bigoted or anti-gay until all you idiots started throwing out that shit like confetti. Maybe I should embrace it and become anti-gay, since being pro-gay seems to have the same effect on your argumentative skills as a lobotomy.

I would never do any harm to anyone, but I more than thoroughly pissed off at people (straight and gay) who keep calling me a hater and acting like I'm fuckin' Bull Connor just because I don't wanna go fuckin' with the definition of marriage. Fuck all you bitches! Keep disrespecting us and trying to force gay marriage down our throats and you'll see what real Haterade tastes like.

If Hilton didn't want to hear Miss California's answer on a topic that is evidently so near and dear to his heart, then he shouldn't have asked the question. I don't think she should have lied and given Hilton the answer he obviously wanted to hear.

I did think her answer was good in that she did not respond hatefully, call Hilton out of his name or state that she thought there was something wrong with gays. All she did was state her belief, which is held by a sizable portion of the US population. Are ALL of those people bigots?

I don't think anyone really cares what Miss California or Miss USA think of gay marriage issues. It was a silly question for that venue. She's a beauty contestant, not a politician.

Why is Hilton seemingly getting a pass for using such hateful sexist language? If Prejean had called Hilton a f** and refused to answer the question, would that be ok? Obviously not..

I wasn't too upset about what she said, she is from a Christian college so her viewpoints would most likely be different from mine.The main reason I felt she should have lost the crown was that she was so all over the place in her response, she just isn't ready to do any big media stuff if she can't get out a streamlined response.These ladies are supposed to be graceful in all categories and this category was flubbed and she did a miserable job of representing her "opposite" viewpoint.Go back over how to respond to on the spot questions Miss California and try again next time in stead of being so damn bitter,not every girl wins but some ladies do.

I don't flow like anonymous, but I'm certainly not in agreement with your take on Ms. California. One of my friends who watched the pageant said she had this thing in the bag until Hilton sandbagged her with this hot potato question.

Believing in traditional marriage doesn't make her a bigot. Her views in this area are no different than the President, the Vice President and the Secretary of State, but I don't see them getting called outside their name or labeled as bigots. When people are inconsistent that way, it makes me think they espouse beliefs which they have not really thought deeply about.

I thought the woman was treated poorly by the pageant. Hilton behaved like a jackass. As I posted at my own blog, if the deal is that people with conservative opinions or values are no longer ever going to have a shot, the pageant should let folks know that up front so people can save themselves the effort and spend it elsewhere.

Believing in traditional marriage does not make one a defacto bigot or intolerant and I think its highly asinine and lacking in analysis to think so. For the many here that think otherwise, just tell me why you're not excoriating our President, who takes the very same position?

This is not a religious issue. It is a question of granting civil rights to every citizen. Citizenship in America guarantees equal protection under the law. Inclusion in that equality has been expanding since the founding of the country to include those that did not own property, women, blacks, etc, and we're a better country for it. Gays & lesbians current demand for the same right to marry is testing traditional boundaries, ruffling feathers, but it is no different from earlier demands for inclusion. We now think of those citizens who tried to deny such expansion as intolerant, ignorant, and bigoted. Get used to those labels if you're on the backward side this time around.

hateful is not the same as ignorant. if Miss Cali thinks gays and lesbians can get married in most of this country, then she is as dumb as a sack of hammers. if she wants to share her beliefs, fine and fucking dandy. if she wants to espouse an opinion about policy, she should get a clue.

i think it was inappropriate for mr. hilton to use the paegent to advance his own political agenda. and i am gay, btw. i do respect ms. california for telling her own truth, especially because she's experienced enough to know that winning paegents has nothing to do with letting your little light shine and being true to yourself, but about conforming yourself as much as possible to the judges' expectations. however, both of their opinions and actions made me really dislike them and not want to listen to them, and in the aftermath they both made themselves look even more irrational, petty, and just plain ugly (like, on the inside). hopefully in the future we'll see as little of the both of them as possible.

It would seem people have varying opinions on if Miss California had it "in the bag" prior to being asked a question by Perez -- that is, I have seen opinions elsewhere stating that she received lower marks in some other categories. And I have also seen mentioned here and elsewhere how she flubbed the whole concept of "public speaking." Yes, even if the question is something of a hot-button.It is a civil rights issue, you are talking about denying things like visitation rights in the hospital, filing taxes together, and all the other things a couple gets when they have their union officially recognized by the government -- and those rights are not given with the intent of "marriage is supposed to be for having children," else there'd be enforcement on making sure you could actually, y'know, have children before you're allowed to get married. (Would there be some sort of "punishment" if you, as a couple, decided to not have children? Whee.) This also presupposes that homosexual couples aren't raising children either, blatently untrue, some of them do so (and some of these children might even have one of the adults as a biological parent. It happens.)Denying the right for certain types of couples to receive marriage benefits is most certainly a civil rights issue, others too have already mentioned how interracial marriage was similarly unrecognized by the government in the past.One can disagree with the concept of two consenting adults spending the rest of their lives together and getting rights/recognition from the state, but don't be surprised when other people find your opinion rather bigoted. It would have been entirely possible to answer the question without getting into her personal opinion on gay marriage at all, and merely make some mention about how civil rights are for everybody and not merely some arbitrarily chosen few. Of course, she would've had to be able to articulate such an answer, and I have my serious doubts.